Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 29, 2022

H. v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:21-cv-10962
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In T.H. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Furman awarded $24,571.76 in attorney’s fees and costs, plus post-judgment interest.

Who this affects

T.H., individually and on behalf of M.H., received an award of $24,571.76 in attorney’s fees and costs, plus post-judgment interest; the New York City Department of Education was the opposing party.

What happened

T.H., individually and on behalf of M.H., a child with a disability, sued the New York City Department of Education. The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott, who recommended awarding T.H. $24,571.76 in fees and costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

T.H. objected to the recommendation, and the Department of Education responded. The district court overruled T.H.’s objections and adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s recommendation in full.

Judge Jesse M. Furman awarded T.H. $24,571.76 in attorney’s fees and costs, plus post-judgment interest. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
H. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-10962
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Dec. 29, 2022

Background

T.H., individually and on behalf of M.H., a child with a disability, was the plaintiff in this case against the New York City Department of Education. The court had referred the matter to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for a report and recommendation.

Report and Recommendation

On November 15, 2022, Magistrate Judge Cott recommended that the court award the plaintiff $24,571.76 in attorney’s fees and costs under the fee-shifting provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The recommendation also included post-judgment interest.

T.H. filed timely objections. The Department of Education responded but did not file objections of its own.

Court’s Review and Ruling

The district court explained that it reviews properly objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation independently, while reviewing portions without proper objections for clear error. The court overruled T.H.’s objections, substantially for the reasons stated in the Department of Education’s response, and adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s report and recommendation in its entirety.

The court stated that T.H. was not entitled to more than the amount recommended. Judge Jesse M. Furman therefore awarded T.H. a total of $24,571.76 in attorney’s fees and costs, plus post-judgment interest. The clerk was directed to terminate the specified docket entry, enter judgment consistent with the order, and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.